Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery component'(guardian.co.uk)
guardian.co.uk
Heathrow fire on Boeing Dreamliner 'started in battery component'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/18/heathrow-fire-boeing-dreamliner-battery
5 comments
"the component, an emergency locator transmitter powered by lithium-manganese dioxide batteries"
So not the same batteries as the last time apparently. I wonder if they made the same "fireproof box enclosure" change to these batteries as they did the others. If these batteries were similarly isolated and still caused a fire that bad, that doesn't say very good things about the continued state of battery safety on those planes.
So not the same batteries as the last time apparently. I wonder if they made the same "fireproof box enclosure" change to these batteries as they did the others. If these batteries were similarly isolated and still caused a fire that bad, that doesn't say very good things about the continued state of battery safety on those planes.
This transmitter whose battery is implicated is a stock, off-the-shelf component used in multiple models of aircraft. It is not unique to the 787, was not developed for the 787, and it seems to be an unfortunate coincidence that the failure of one of those units occurred in a 787, when allegedly something like 6000 of these transmitter units have been in service for nearly a decade. Honeywell (which makes the transmitter) may be in for trouble, but apparently Boeing's stock price has rebounded a bit since people in the market actually, you know, read the available information and realized this isn't a "Boeing 787 battery problem".
Of course, I'm sure that any moment Elon Musk (PBUH) will be along to explain why the entire aviation industry was wrong to use these transmitters.
Of course, I'm sure that any moment Elon Musk (PBUH) will be along to explain why the entire aviation industry was wrong to use these transmitters.
Of course, I'm sure that any moment Elon Musk (PBUH) will be along to explain why the entire aviation industry was wrong to use these transmitters.
Was he wrong in his assessment of the original 787 battery overheating issue?
You realize that they still have no earthly idea what happened to the batteries involved in the earlier incidents, correct? The "fix," such as it is, simply involves the implementation of more robust containment measures.
Was he wrong in his assessment of the original 787 battery overheating issue?
You realize that they still have no earthly idea what happened to the batteries involved in the earlier incidents, correct? The "fix," such as it is, simply involves the implementation of more robust containment measures.
Was he wrong in his assessment of the original 787 battery overheating issue?
Everything Elon (PBUH) declares is truth beyond question. Allow me to state that up-front so as to appease his followers.
You realize that they still have no earthly idea what happened to the batteries involved in the earlier incidents, correct?
And you realize you're replying to a comment which wasn't about the earlier incidents except insofar as it pointed out that this incident seems to be unrelated and really appears to just be an off-the-shelf component failing in a way that it could have failed on any of the other aircraft types it's deployed in?
My reference to Elon Musk (PBUH) was mostly because I'm already seeing in this thread the same sort of frankly religious worship of Elon (PBUH) we saw during the incidents which were unique to the 787, and I make a point of hammering on that whenever possible, since although Elon (PBUH) is a smart guy who does cool stuff, he's not quite at the divine-omniscience level seemingly attributed to him any time the 787 gets mentioned on HN.
Everything Elon (PBUH) declares is truth beyond question. Allow me to state that up-front so as to appease his followers.
You realize that they still have no earthly idea what happened to the batteries involved in the earlier incidents, correct?
And you realize you're replying to a comment which wasn't about the earlier incidents except insofar as it pointed out that this incident seems to be unrelated and really appears to just be an off-the-shelf component failing in a way that it could have failed on any of the other aircraft types it's deployed in?
My reference to Elon Musk (PBUH) was mostly because I'm already seeing in this thread the same sort of frankly religious worship of Elon (PBUH) we saw during the incidents which were unique to the 787, and I make a point of hammering on that whenever possible, since although Elon (PBUH) is a smart guy who does cool stuff, he's not quite at the divine-omniscience level seemingly attributed to him any time the 787 gets mentioned on HN.
Nobody brought up Elon (PBUH) until you did, with an oblique reference to his earlier comments on the 787 battery issues.
Tin-foil: Airbus sabotage!
Q: What is Elon Musk's favorite movie?
A: Planes, Trains and Automobiles!
A: Planes, Trains and Automobiles!
This device wasn't in a battery enclosure. The ELT is a stand-alone device installed in the crown of the aircraft. According to the article, it was produced by Honeywell and there are 6,000 currently installed in aircraft of various types.
ELTs used to use NiCd batteries. I know there have been fire problems with ELT batteries on Cessnas and other GA aircraft in recent years. It sounds like the 787 was just doubly unlucky to be the commercial frame to get an ELT fire.
ELTs used to use NiCd batteries. I know there have been fire problems with ELT batteries on Cessnas and other GA aircraft in recent years. It sounds like the 787 was just doubly unlucky to be the commercial frame to get an ELT fire.
Ah, that's good then. Hopefully for Boeing the PR stays under control.
No, these are not rechargeable as far as I am aware. RESCU 406 SE2 lists a battery life of 12 years. I don't know which the 787 is equipped with.
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/NEC...
https://commerce.honeywell.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/NEC...
FYI LiMnO2 is the chemistry used in a lot of coin cells (any battery that starts with "CR" is one, such as the CR2032 used for BIOS RTC/SRAM)
It's commonly used for items that will use very low-power for a very long time, with possible high-current pulses, which makes it great for alarms (it's also a common chemistry in "lifetime battery" smoke alarms, for example).
Larger lithium primary cells are a fire-risk (and are not permitted for passenger carry unless installed in a device).
It's commonly used for items that will use very low-power for a very long time, with possible high-current pulses, which makes it great for alarms (it's also a common chemistry in "lifetime battery" smoke alarms, for example).
Larger lithium primary cells are a fire-risk (and are not permitted for passenger carry unless installed in a device).
I wonder if the composite material the 787 is made of didn't increase the risk that a fire like that spread, though. It seems incredibly unlikely that this is the first time that part took fire.
A separate 787 out of Boston has been turned around, possible fuel pump issue -
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/07/18/ja...
When it rains it pours.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/2013/07/18/ja...
When it rains it pours.
That kind of diversion is very common for a new type entering service. The crew doesn't have a lot of time in the type, they know MX doesn't have a ton of time working on the type, and so their default when anything seems amiss is to get the plane on the ground and have it looked at.
The diversion rate right now for the 787 is enormous, but nearly all the diversions are "abundance of caution" calls by the crew.
The diversion rate right now for the 787 is enormous, but nearly all the diversions are "abundance of caution" calls by the crew.
gonna cost a lot of money and inconvenience a lot of passengers. if a non-emergency, wouldn't they loop in dispatch and maybe a Boeing engineer before turning it around? makes you think, better to wait til they work out kinks before taking one.
Can't work out all the bugs without running the thing you built.
yeah, I hear you. it's just, I don't know that they turn the plane around just because the 'check engine' light came on... and whether it's an abundance of caution or not, for myself, sounds like a situation I'd rather avoid as a passenger.
"When it rains it pours."
Re: lithium
Yesterday I was just charging the lithium battery for a new RC Chopper I had purchased which was sitting in the outer office. I heard a large pop almost like a gun went off. Ran out and the battery had exploded! Only used it one time (was on the 2nd charge).
I then measured the temperature with an infrared sensor and it read 216degees F in the exposed part that I got a reading off of (varied between about 160 and 216 depending on where I probed).
Now I can't fly until they send me a new batter and charger which they have to do by ground because the batteries can't be shipped by air.
Re: lithium
Yesterday I was just charging the lithium battery for a new RC Chopper I had purchased which was sitting in the outer office. I heard a large pop almost like a gun went off. Ran out and the battery had exploded! Only used it one time (was on the 2nd charge).
I then measured the temperature with an infrared sensor and it read 216degees F in the exposed part that I got a reading off of (varied between about 160 and 216 depending on where I probed).
Now I can't fly until they send me a new batter and charger which they have to do by ground because the batteries can't be shipped by air.
Years late and regularly bursts into flames. It sounds like Boeing ran the 787 program like it was a software project.
To be fair to Boeing, this Honeywell ELT has nothing to do with them and is on thousands of planes. It seems it may just have been an unlucky coincidence that the first fire was on a 787.
On top of that, there are probably several hundred consumer devices with Lithium ion batteries on board the average flight, none of which are avionics grade, and more than a few probably stowed out of sight in the overhead lockers. It's surprising there haven't been more fires; or it's evidence that these spontaneous battery fires really are quite rare.
To quote Mercedes car commercial:
>Perception is always reality
>Perception is always reality
My only fear with this recurring disaster is that their sheer incompetence will ruin the public perception of new battery technology. That could spell doom for companies like Tesla, wh o have been designing for safety first, instead of outsourcing critical components to the lowest bidder.
I think Musk got out ahead of this one actually.
He called them out after the first incident happend: http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/26/elon-...
Boeing probably should have licensed Tesla tech after the first incident.
He called them out after the first incident happend: http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intelligence/2013/02/26/elon-...
Boeing probably should have licensed Tesla tech after the first incident.
As PR moves go "calling them out" was a good one.
But even if Boeing had achieved the extremely unlikelihood of being able to get Tesla car batteries modified, fitted to their aircraft and approved by the relevant licensing bodies, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the totally unrelated Honeywell bit of kit suspected of catching fire in the Ethiopian 787
But even if Boeing had achieved the extremely unlikelihood of being able to get Tesla car batteries modified, fitted to their aircraft and approved by the relevant licensing bodies, it wouldn't have made a blind bit of difference to the totally unrelated Honeywell bit of kit suspected of catching fire in the Ethiopian 787
I don't think Elon was suggesting Tesla batteries so much as the batteries similar to the ones used on the Falcon 9.
I feel that with low enough risk rates, prevalence in new battery products will still increase to the point that Lithium Ion and similar high end batteries are currently at. When cell phones and laptops were making frequent news stories by exploding, it scared a lot of people, but advances in battery technology were made to make them safer and now they are ubiquitous.
I agree that a widely held negative view of the technology would be detrimental to many of our favorite startups. However, so far it seems that the popular (not political) press has been very factually oriented. For instance the bad press from the several problems that Fisker had with launching their vehicle did not spill over and cloud Tesla's reputation. (Although not all of Fisker's problems had to do with batteries, obviously.) Hopefully Boeing is only ruining their own rep (though the impact on US-headquartered manufacturing is unfortunate). Tesla is, so far, unscathed.
Interestingly enough, Tesla co-founder and CTO JB Staubel created some kind of hybrid propulsion system for aircraft, that I believe was purchased by Boeing. So there are definitely connections (if not continuity of technology) between the companies.
[Edited for clarity]
Interestingly enough, Tesla co-founder and CTO JB Staubel created some kind of hybrid propulsion system for aircraft, that I believe was purchased by Boeing. So there are definitely connections (if not continuity of technology) between the companies.
[Edited for clarity]
This particular battery is a somewhat old battery technology commercial LiMnO2 batteries date to the 70s
Looks like it's just unlucky that this happened with a 787, given that the ELT is a standalone component apparently fitted to around 6000 planes of various types.
[1] http://www.aaib.gov.uk/cms_resources.cfm?file=/S5-2013%20ET-...